Standing Committee G

[Part II]

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

[Continuation from column 218]

Clause 19 - Charging

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 19, page 9, line 22, after 'charge', insert 
 '(other than a charge for fire safety consultancy services provided by agreement to owners or occupiers of commercial premises, being services of a type also available from non-fire and rescue authority providers and not being services which the authority has a duty to provide under section 6(2))'.
 I suspect that the Minister has already helpfully hinted why the amendment is unnecessary. I shall be delighted to hear him tell me that it is unnecessary because the powers relating to our objective already exist in the Local Government Act 2003. 
 I declare at the outset that I was put up to tabling this amendment by a fire authority that believes that it will be prevented from charging more than cost recovery rates for valuable consultancy services that it delivers, and wishes to continue to deliver, to third parties on a commercial basis. The amendment is designed to exclude from cost recovery-only charging services that are provided in competition with other professional consultants. I have used those words deliberately to try to define the activities that we have in mind. We are talking not about giving advice to vulnerable people in their homes, but about input to architects and engineers in the design of buildings, or advice and consultancy to property developers and property owners in maintaining and managing their fire and escape plans—services that it is perfectly proper for them to contract from a third party specialist such as a big civil engineering firm, for example, or a properly qualified fire and rescue authority. 
 There is no reason to preclude the fire and rescue authority from making a profit on that kind of competitive work. In addition, it would be inappropriate to require fire and rescue authorities that provide such consultancy services in competition with the private sector to operate as not-for-profit competitors. That would be grossly unfair to the private sector. As the Minister will remember, we had a similar debate on the trading powers of local authorities when we considered the Local Government Act 2003. 
 If the Minister were to tell me that the objective that I seek to achieve through amendment No. 53 is already available to fire and rescue authorities through the trading powers in the 2003 Act, that would be fine; but 
 if he were to tell me that the exception would be available only if authorities achieved excellent status, that would present some problems. Clearly, it is not possible to operate a consultancy on a commercial basis if activities have to be turned on and off from one year to the next—if a fire authority had to say ''This year, we shall do £2 million-worth of arm's-length commercial fire consultancy; next year, we will not be allowed to do any. We would like to take it up again the year after, when we are again excellent, but will not be able to because our customer base will have disappeared.'' 
 There needs to be some way of dealing with that problem. I see no reason why we should not exclude from the restriction on cost-plus recovery work that is clearly third-party competitive work, tendered in the marketplace against other competitors and provided to commercial third parties. I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.

Nick Raynsford: The amendment deals with the provision by authorities of fire safety advice on a consultancy basis. It would provide an exception to the principle that authorities can do no more than recover their costs, thereby enabling them to engage in the provision of consultancy services on a commercial basis. It includes the restriction that any such paid consultancy must not cut across an authority's duty to provide general fire safety advice. However, I notice that the amendment does not seek the wider safeguards that we provided in the 2003 Act, which required any such trading by local authorities to be conducted through a company structure, so that there was a level playing field in terms of taxation for providers in the public sector and those in the private sector. I suspect that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that that further safeguard is necessary if there is to be a genuinely level playing field and if the kind of allegations about which he is reasonably concerned are not to arise.
 I am aware that several authorities already have a significant presence in the market for detailed fire safety advice. For our purposes, such work is probably best labelled ''consultancy''. Section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947 grants authorities wide discretion in the charges that they set for such work, and some have interpreted that as enabling them to charge more than the full cost of giving advice in certain circumstances. The recent Select Committee report noted that further consultation was needed, and clause 6(2) acknowledges the possibility of drawing a distinction between advice that it is reasonable to expect an authority to provide and additional advice that it may offer. Establishing how the distinction should be drawn is a vexed question on which we sought views in the consultation document that we issued earlier this month. I am satisfied that, if such a distinction can be drawn, we already have powers under section 95 of the 2003 Act to allow authorities to trade in consultancy through a company. However, until we have a better understanding of the responses to the consultation exercise, it is premature to attempt to deal further with the matter. 
 On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, it is not only excellent authorities that will be granted 
 entitlement to trade under the powers in the 2003 Act. The Government's policy is that weak and poor authorities should generally concentrate on improving their own service performance rather than seek to trade, and we intend to give a general approval to authorities categorised as excellent, good or fair. No decision has yet been taken on whether a comparable regime would apply in the case of the fire service, but the principle that the general trading permission should, to some extent, be related to categories of performance seems right. However, we also recognise that it would not be realistic for the power to trade to be turned on and off annually, depending on a change in category. Some flexibility and acceptance of the ability of authorities to continue at least for a period of time if they suffer a loss of status in the comprehensive performance assessment hierarchy may well be appropriate. Those issues all need to be considered further. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the clause is the right way forward.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise that issue and get the Minister's response to it. It can be dealt with in the consultation process, although to allow opportunity for parliamentary time to discuss it, we had to raise it in the context of the Bill.
 Although the Minister did not commit himself, I am reassured. Firstly, he said that the power to trade in those circumstances is likely to be extended to excellent, good and fair authorities. We will come on to deal with the fact that, in the context of the Bill, authorities will be marked not according to how well they discharge their functions, but according to how faithfully they comply with the Government's framework document. That is not a measure of excellence that we would necessarily recognise. Secondly, I am reassured by the Minister's recognition that trading cannot be turned on and off. It is a tricky issue. I suspect that it would take a year or so to deal with it, and I hope that the Minister has had representations on that issue from the authorities involved. 
 Finally, the Minister commented on the use of arm's-length companies. I suspect that those fire authorities that suggested that we raise the issue in Standing Committee will be most displeased to learn that I now agree with the Minister on that point. Using an arms-length company and ensuring a level playing field for tax and premiums is the right way forward. I do not suppose that would be hugely welcomed by those authorities that have been receiving revenues without having to have a separate structure. It is obviously important to ensure a level playing field. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance on that point. I hope that a sensible regime comes out of the consultation—one that allows the one or two potentially world-class consultancy operations in our fire and rescue community to prosper and reduce the burden on council tax payers by making good profits on their consultancy business. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
clause 19, page 9, line 24, after first 'the', insert 'marginal'. 
This is a probing amendment. It would insert the word ''marginal'' before ''cost'' in line 24. The amendment thus suggests that authorities be limited to recovery of marginal cost. That may not be what the Government intend, and the term ''marginal cost'' in the context of fire and rescue operations may not be obviously self-defining. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on how they intend to operate the regime of limited recovery of costs. 
 In an organisation such as a fire and rescue authority, which needs to be able to respond to an emergency—I do not want to raise anybody's hackles by phrasing that in the wrong way—there is, by definition, surplus capacity of significant amounts of time as personnel await the occurrence of an incident. It is therefore difficult to talk about marginal cost. The manpower is there anyway, so it would be absurd if the costs that could be recovered were simply the costs of the petrol used getting to and from the incident. It would probably also be inappropriate to charge for the cost per hour of the wage and salary bills of the crews attending. 
 There are complicated issues around the recovery of costs where a range of activities are undertaken. If I have correctly understood subsection (5), it intends a balancing of the books to take place for each class of event for which charging occurs, rather than for a pool of charging across the whole authority. Rescuing cats from trees will constitute a set of books that balance over the year, and getting people out of lifts will be a different activity that must balance across the year. The same crews, appliances and overheads will be involved, all of which will also be used in non-chargeable work. Has the Minister discussed proper accounting with bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy so that we can understand what we are discussing when we read that 
''the authority's income from charges does not exceed the costs to them for taking the action for which the charges are imposed''?

Nick Raynsford: Considering the effect that the amendment would have were it to be taken literally, I was very relieved to hear the tone in which the hon. Gentleman moved it, as it would be yet another highly restrictive and centralising measure from a party that likes to believe that it has atoned for its past errors and is becoming more supportive of local freedoms.
 The hon. Gentleman highlighted the folly of restricting charging to marginal costs by stating that it could relate to the cost of the petrol involved in attending an incident, which would be completely unrealistic. I am grateful to him for clarifying that it was a probing amendment, because it is unduly restrictive—much more onerous than current arrangements—and it is at variance with the approach adopted by local authorities when setting charges for delivery of discretionary services outside the fire arena. The accepted approach is to seek to recover the full cost of the service provided, although 
 authorities retain their discretion to recover less than the full costs if they consider it appropriate. 
 In paragraph 18 of the consultation document, we make it clear that authorities should draw on familiar and accepted accounting practices when determining the level of the charge that would be levied under an order in clause 19. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had consulted with CIPFA. If he reads paragraph 19, he will find that we guide fire and rescue authorities to draw on the existing and familiar principles as set out in CIPFA's best value accounting code of practice. We go on to make one or two other helpful suggestions. We have also provided suggestions about the bases that fire and rescue authorities may wish to adopt, which are highlighted in the CIPFA definition of ''total cost''. To restrict an authority's ability to charge to mere marginal costs would be a retrograde step. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has not provided quite as much information as I had hoped, but I do not intend to press the amendment. Although I entirely accept that restricting recovery to marginal costs would seriously restrict the revenue that could be raised, I do not accept that it is more prescriptive than the Bill. The amendment and the Bill are highly prescriptive, telling authorities precisely what they can and cannot recover. The allocation of costs between chargeable and non-chargeable services will be a complex matter. The CIPFA approach is the right one: using an independent body and relying on generally accepted accounting practices is the right way to go. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward O'Hara: We now come to amendment No. 156, with which we will discuss amendment No. 54. I call the hon. Member for Teignbridge to move the lead amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The amendment really relates to amendments Nos. 70 and 71, and I suppose that I should have asked for it to be considered at the same time as them. I do not wish to debate the issue now. Last time when I said that I did not want to move an amendment, it caused great consternation to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, which was completely unintended. I understand that if I do not move this amendment, the hon. Gentleman can still move his amendment. If that is so, I shall not move it, but I seek your guidance, Mr. O'Hara; otherwise I shall just move the amendment formally if that is more appropriate.

Edward O'Hara: So the hon. Gentleman wants to give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the opportunity to move his amendment?

Richard Younger-Ross: Yes.

Philip Hammond: I do not wish to move my amendment.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: This is an interesting debate. The clause deals with charging authorised by the Secretary of State for any services delivered by fire and rescue authorities, except for fire-related activities. We believe that that undermines the principle of placing other emergency functions on an equal footing with fire work, and erodes the core status of the fire and rescue authorities' other emergency functions. Although the clause replicates precisely the prohibition on charging under the 1947 Act, that is misleading, because we now have a much wider definition of the statutory responsibilities of the fire and rescue authorities.
 Under the 1947 Act, fire and rescue authorities were not allowed to charge for anything that they were statutorily required to provide, and they were allowed—without reference to the Secretary of State—to charge for services that they provided on a discretionary basis. We now have a strange and much less satisfactory situation in which authorities will be allowed to charge for services that they have a statutory obligation to provide, although they must have permission from the Secretary of State and what they can charge in relation to their discretionary activities is limited. I do not consider that anyone could argue that that is not a centralising move. 
 As the Committee will understand by now, we are worried that there may be an attempt to shift the full burden of road traffic accident intervention on to the motorist through the charging of insurers, which will lead to higher insurance premiums. That is unacceptable. It is another attack on motorists, who are rapidly becoming a persecuted minority in this country, and it would increase the incentive to drive without insurance, which is a growing menace throughout our society. 
 We prefer fire authorities to be given a right under the Bill to charge for non-statutory services—for everything that they do under clauses 11 and 12—which would include the vast majority of the items that the Minister reeled off earlier, and clearly exclude charging for functions that they are required to deliver under clauses 6 to 9, and medical assistance of the type that would usually be delivered by the NHS, except in the rare circumstances—perhaps not so rare—in which the fire service is the first on the scene of an incident. Hopefully, in future, the fire service will more often be ready and able to deliver medical assistance. 
 I am pleased that the Minister has been able to clarify the position on charging for consultancy work. We look forward to further clarification when the results of the consultation process are published. We would rather see a clear power under the Bill for fire authorities to charge for non-statutory services, generally on a cost-recovery basis, and to charge commercial rates for works that they undertake in competition with commercial competitors. The Bill needs to contain a specific exclusion of charging for emergency road traffic accident work to reassure motorists who fear that they are about to be the victim of yet another smash-and-grab raid by the 
 Government. The Minister has said in rather loose terms that he is not changing anything and that things are carrying on as before, but I predict that, without an assurance from the Government or a change to the Bill, we will see a development in that direction very soon. I suspect that that we will want to return to this point later in the passage of the Bill, and that our noble Friends in the other place will also address it. I am not going to ask my hon. Friends to vote against the clause at the moment, but, having failed to persuade the Minister about the amendments that we have tabled, we will want to return to these issues in due course.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is preparing his second press release saying how hard done by motorists are. Without question, it is appropriate that those who are responsible for causing accidents should pay for the consequences of their actions. I have no difficulty supporting the clear intention behind the clause. I do have concerns, however, about who decides that such charges should be made, and about the level of the charges. With amendments Nos. 70 and 71, we were trying to allow greater flexibility for local authorities. We would have left it to the local authority to decide whether the fire authority should charge for attending on road traffic accidents. A number of the fire authorities that I spoke to would resist charging for attending on road traffic accidents, because they do not regard such charging as appropriate. They made it clear to me that they would not wish to charge.
 I hope that we do not get too excited and start saying that everyone will bring in high charges, because that is not the intent of the fire authorities. If such charges are brought in, we will point to the grubby fingers of the Minister at that time—I am sure that the present Minister would not do that. He is shaking his head, and I am sure that he will clarify matters for us in his speech.

Philip Hammond: I have spent the past hour and a half asking the Minister to confirm that he would not, in any circumstances, introduce generalised charging for road traffic accident extraction, and he has made countless statements, always avoiding that pledge. How the hon. Gentleman can say that he is sure that this Minister would not introduce a power to charge for dealing with road traffic accidents is beyond me.

Richard Younger-Ross: I was always told that irony never worked very well in the Chamber. I was making the point ironically, rather than literally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will give the Minister an opportunity to make it clear that it is his intention not to force fire and rescue authorities to charge for dealing with road traffic accidents, but to empower them to do so if they want. I hope that that is the preferred option.
 We may return to charging and flexibility at the next stage in the consideration of the Bill. I have not prepared a press release on this, so that point is not related to press releases. I am not sure whether there will be a press release.

Nick Raynsford: I have to say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that when in a hole it is usually wise to stop digging. In the course of the debate on this clause, the Opposition have revealed themselves to be wholly opportunistic and to be pointing in different directions simultaneously. First, they desperately try to appeal to ''the poor, hard-done-by motorist'' who is held up as the victim of a rapacious Government who are trying to extract money from him—which we have no intention of doing. Next, they say that they are really the friends of fire and rescue authorities, although they are currently trying to cut off a source of revenue for many authorities. Then, they try to pretend that they are the friends of the council tax payer, although some of their amendments to the clause would have forced up council tax by denying fire and rescue authorities current sources of revenue. Their approach would encourage bad practice in all sorts of ways by lifting the pressure from people who may be encouraged by the presence of charges to improve their performance in a way that enhances public safety. The example of lift maintenance was an absolute classic.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister now, because he has been asked several times and has the resources at his disposal, give the Committee a figure for the total amount of charges raised by fire authorities in England for carrying out road traffic accident extraction work?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the practice varies significantly from area to area. A number of authorities do not produce detailed figures that allow a full analysis to be conducted. Some that do impose charges are cautious, because they are conscious that they may not comply with some interpretations of the law that charges should only cover costs. That is a point the hon. Gentleman recognised earlier, but he may have forgotten that fact. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is difficult to obtain precise figures. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he is an assiduous MP and has undoubtedly consulted on the matter, that fire and rescue authorities value the ability to impose charges in certain instances. Their revenue is to some extent—it varies from authority to authority—dependent on that, and arbitrarily cutting it off, which would be the effect of a raft of amendments moved by the Opposition, would have a serious adverse financial effect. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in surprise. I have to tell him that all he has to do is talk to representatives of fire and rescue authorities; they will immediately give him examples of how their finances could be undermined by the amendments he has proposed.

Hugo Swire: I fully understand that the Minister is unable to give a precise figure because not all of the data is to hand, but he should be able to give an estimate of how much is raised annually. Those figures must be to hand. I think I can speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when I say that we would settle for an estimate rather than a precise figure, although we hope to get that later.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has sat on the Committee long enough to know that I do not offer
 figures in which I have no confidence, and despite his blandishments, I shall not offer broad-brush estimates on issues that need to be researched more thoroughly. We come to the nub of the argument.

Stephen McCabe: If this is genuinely a matter of principle, surely the figure does not matter. If Conservative Members are against the charges, the figure is not the relevant factor. The relevant factor is whether there should be an additional source of revenue for particular activities, or whether that whole cost, whatever it is, should be transferred to the council tax payer.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very valid point. The truth is that the Opposition say one thing to one group of people, and another to a different group of people. When they are talking to representatives of motorists, they say that they are opposed to all charges. When they are talking to representatives of local authorities, they say that they are in favour of local discretion. Their amendments today would have taken away local discretion on a whole raft of measures. When they are talking to fire and rescue authorities, they say that they want to encourage good practice and fire safety, but then they turn to another group of hard-done-by people whose votes they are trying to garner, and say, ''We will protect you from charges from the wicked Government.'' This is an unprincipled Opposition.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: I will give way in a moment, but I shall just let the hon. Gentleman sit and enjoy the next passage, because I am enjoying myself. They are an unprincipled Opposition who say whatever they believe will appeal to one group of people at one point in time without thinking of the consistency of their position. That is not a credible position for a party that aspires to return to government.

Philip Hammond: I have to say that that is very rich indeed coming from a Member of the present Government. I shall tell the Minister what is unprincipled. It is unprincipled to tell Committee members that removing a stream of revenue that fire authorities currently enjoy will have a serious adverse effect on council tax while repeatedly failing to quantify the amount of revenue involved. The amounts involved in charges for areas that would have been excluded by the amendments that we have discussed today are very small, and nothing like the £100 million that he wrongly suggested—

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: That he wrongly suggested was recovered by the NHS ambulance trust.

Nick Raynsford: I said NHS.

Philip Hammond: The record will show that the Minister said ''NHS ambulance trust'' in his first stab at it. It is nothing like that amount. He talks about being principled, so before he tells the Committee that there will be serious adverse revenue consequences, he must define the amount of money involved. He cannot do that, so he should refrain from making such remarks.

Nick Raynsford: As the fire and rescue authorities are not required to provide data on that issue, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that not all of them do so. Therefore, it would not be possible for me to give an accurate estimate. As I said to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I shall certainly not give an estimate off the top of my head, but I remind him of the evidence that I quoted earlier. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority cited just one area in which it raises some £700,000 a year, which helps to resource its fire and prevention work, being the equivalent of 25 firefighters. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thinks that that is an insignificant sum of money, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure which planet the Minister is on, but I have told him once that the example that he is quoting, the £700,000 for lift rescues—

Nick Raynsford: No, for advice.

Philip Hammond: It is not covered by the amendments.

Nick Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it would have been explicitly excluded by amendment No. 49, which excluded
''the provision of anything which it is the authority's duty to provide under section 6(2)''—
 which includes advice. Therefore, once again the Opposition say one thing in one context and another in another. They do not know what they are arguing. They are flailing around desperately trying to garner votes from different interest groups, and their approach deserves contempt. 
 The Government believe that this is a complex and difficult issue.

Philip Hammond: Is it?

Nick Raynsford: It is a very difficult issue. Authorities currently charge for a number of services. We have no wish arbitrarily to restrict their income-generating activities, provided that those activities do not inhibit the delivery of the most effective service to protect public safety. That is the priority. However, with that proviso, we are keen that authorities should continue to be able to derive some revenue from charges. We are not, therefore, tempted to follow the Opposition's proposals arbitrarily to restrict those sources of revenue, which would have a significant adverse impact on council tax. How the Opposition can take that line at a time when there is widespread public concern about levels of council tax beggars belief. The Conservative party is only too happy to blame the Government for high council taxes, but it has demonstrated all afternoon that it is keen to pursue measures that will force council taxes up.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is nodding his head furiously in the back row, but I do not think that it will get him a job. Let me try a different tack.
 The Minister will not give us a figure for the amount of revenue that he says fire authorities would have lost as a result of the amendments that have been defeated this afternoon. Now he is talking about their power to charge. Let me ask him this, because he is also responsible for the operation of local government finance. In his forward-looking projections, how much revenue does he assume fire authorities will raise—let us say in 2005–06? Will he give the Committee an indication of the order of magnitude? Are we talking about £100 million or £1 billion?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood that we are engaged in a consultation process on this issue. I was saying that it is a complex and difficult issue, on which we have no intention of rushing into a series of ill thought-out proposals. On the contrary, we must pay attention to a number of priorities.
 The first of those is to do nothing that will in any way inhibit the ability of a fire and rescue service to deliver life-saving services in the most effective way. That is the overriding priority. Secondly, we want to ensure that regimes are in place that do not provide perverse incentives against desirable outcomes. We want to discourage false alarms. We want to discourage poor lift maintenance. All those factors need to be taken into account. 
 Thirdly, we need to consider the revenue implications for fire and rescue authorities, particularly at a time when there is widespread and justified public concern about high council tax levels. Fourthly, we need to think about arrangements that provide a balance between the discretion that fire and rescue authorities should enjoy, and the consistency required to avoid anomalies between practices in different parts of the country. That is a difficult issue, and there are many others too. 
 Without boring the Committee by pursuing this further, I should like to make the point that the Government are serious about this issue. We are following the approach recommended by the Select Committee: this requires further research and consideration before decisions are made. We have made provision for that. There are order-making powers in the Bill, but we have no intention of using them, and certainly no intention of changing the status quo until we have completed an extensive consultation exercise and have had the benefit of informed advice on what might be appropriate arrangements to put in place in future. That is the responsible and sensible way forward, and that is what the Government are doing. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: I should point out that we have another five clauses and six groups of amendments to get through before 6 o'clock.

Clause 20 - Exercise of powers at or under sea

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I want to ask the Minister one question about the clause. I think of it as the channel tunnel clause. There may be other applications, but the channel tunnel application seems to require an answer. If a fire and rescue authority has the power to act outside its area, that power may be exercised under this clause at sea or under the sea. That is fairly uncontentious. The restrictions contained in the Bill, including the restrictions on charging for recovery at more than cost, will apply to work carried out at sea or under the sea.
 The Kent and Medway combined fire authority, as I understand it, provides fire cover for the channel tunnel. There is a permanently manned fire station at the tunnel entrance, which is staffed by Kent fire authority personnel and managed by the Kent fire authority. Although under the present regime the authority is not allowed to charge for firefighting interventions, it charges the operators of the channel tunnel substantial sums for maintaining capacity. 
 I guess that if we were having a broad philosophical discussion, the distinction between fighting fires and maintaining capacity might be rather academic. Most people will call the fire service to fight a fire in their home or building only very rarely, but they will want to ensure that capacity is maintained 24/7 should they wish to call upon it. The Minister will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to engage him in a philosophical debate about capacity charging, but can he give me the reassurance that nothing in the clause—I will limit it to the clause—will change the arrangements that the Kent and Medway combined fire authority has in relation to its operations in the channel tunnel? What discussions have he or his officials had with the Kent and Medway fire authority and the channel tunnel operators about the clause? How will it impact on that authority and the arrangements that are in place for fire and rescue cover in the channel tunnel?

Nick Raynsford: The clause will allow the fire and rescue service to continue to be employed to deal with emergencies both at sea and under the sea. That involves more than the channel tunnel. The hon. Gentleman highlights the role of Kent and Medway fire and rescue authority, but this has a wider application.

Philip Hammond: I should have made it clear that I cannot think of another sub-sea structure that extends beyond the territorial sea of the United Kingdom, for which a UK fire authority might reasonably have responsibility.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not believe that there are any others, but this could allow a contribution to rescue at sea beyond the territorial waters. That is why it covers operations both at and under the sea. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a general duty to manage the response of UK authorities to territorial incidents
 in territorial waters and beyond. The MCA does not maintain its own core of firefighters, but will enter into agreements with other service providers, including fire and rescue services, to provide a response to fires and other emergencies at sea, and to provide fire crews equipped and trained to undertake such work. Under clause 9, the Secretary of State will have the power to impose a duty on a fire and rescue authority in relation to emergencies offshore.
 A little glitch has occurred, which is to do with the ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for such work. That was covered by the provision for the fire and rescue authorities to charge under the Marine Safety Act 2003, which amended section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947. It has unfortunately come to light that in the repeal of the 1947 Act, that provision will be lost. We will undoubtedly need to introduce an appropriate amendment in future to resolve that issue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, because it has provided an opportunity for me to alert Committee members to it. 
 I have just been advised that technically, under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, the channel tunnel is part of Kent, so does not extend beyond Britain's territorial waters—an interesting observation. [Interruption.] I am not sure how the French will respond to that, but we do not want to risk getting into such difficult territory far from our area of responsibility.

Philip Hammond: The Minister confirms that there will be no change to the arrangements. I only hope that he will reply to the sedentary observation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon that perhaps we could investigate the possibility of extending the channel tunnel to Paris—and one day, if we have the money, down to the Bordeaux vineyards.

Edward O'Hara: I was a little generous in allowing that discussion to continue.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in
clause 21, page 10, line 7, leave out sub-section (2)(a).

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 157, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 8, after 'functions', insert 
 'but the Secretary of State shall allow fire and rescue authorities discretion in local decision making.'.
 No. 82, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out from 'manner' to 'best'.

Philip Hammond: As we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock, I shall move directly on to clause 21, which gives statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which the Secretary of State has already published in draft. That appears to be the key document that will effectively define how fire and rescue authorities discharge their functions, and
 which, by virtue of provisions later in the Bill that require compliance, allows the Secretary of State to dictate a blueprint for the operation of fire and rescue services. That further erodes the principle of local service accountability.
 In fact, the framework tells us much more about the Government's intention than reading the Bill will ever do. We object to a document of such overriding significance, which will probably be the single most important influence on how fire and rescue authorities carry out their functions, being incorporated by reference into primary legislation, so that it is not subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. 
 Amendment No. 81 would remove the obligation for the framework to set out priorities and objectives for authorities and the discharge of their functions. The proper role of Parliament is to set out the functions of fire and rescue authorities in primary legislation, and the Bill does just that. The Secretary of State already has substantial powers, particularly under clauses 9, 14 and 17, to direct how those functions will be discharged. The further provisions in the framework allow an unscrutinised document to have the force of primary legislation. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to authorities 
''in connection with the discharge of any of their functions''.
 That should be a sufficient level of intervention. The discharge of their proper functions must be a matter for local fire and rescue authorities, rather than something to be defined in detail by the Secretary of State. 
 Amendment No. 82 would simply make more objective the obligation on the Secretary of State under subsection (4) to discharge his functions under subsection (1). It would require that the functions be discharged in the manner best calculated to promote public safety, the ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness'' of fire and rescue authorities and of matters in connection with which they have functions, rather than requiring that the functions be discharged 
''in the manner and to the extent that appears to him to''
 do all those things. 
 It is not unreasonable to seek to introduce a semi-objective test of how the functions of preparing and publishing the national framework are discharged. At the moment, the Secretary of State could reasonably argue that the wording is so loose that there is no objective hurdle for him to meet. We can see no reason not to introduce an objective test that would make the Secretary of State's draft of the fire and rescue national framework subject to potential challenge if it did not focus on public safety and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It can only be helpful to have the Secretary of State kept on a short leash and, at least theoretically, subject to the possibility of challenge to his decisions. 
 The Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 157, approaches the problems that we address in a different way by trying to add words to subsection (2)(a) requiring the Secretary of State to allow fire and 
 rescue authorities local discretion in decision making. I entirely support the sentiment behind that amendment, but there is no explanation of how the conflict that would then be created between the inserted words and the remainder of the subsection would be resolved. The subsection would state that the framework must set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities but must allow them local discretion; those two requirements are likely to collide. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Teignbridge to consider whether it might not be better to remove the requirement for the framework to contain the priorities and objectives in subsection (2)(a).

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Amendment No 152 is a probing amendment. We want to highlight the fact that we wish local authorities to have greater discretion. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman's idea that the subsection should be removed entirely. It is essential that if we have a national framework, it should not be too rigid. We have seen in other areas and sectors—in the national curriculum for education, for example—that the system creaks if structures are not flexible enough to take account of local need.
 We largely support these clauses, and the amendments to them tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I urge the Minister to examine whether a more flexible system can be created. Later, we will debate a new clause on the management board that will control the framework within a region. It is important that the individual circumstances of an authority be taken into account. The circumstances of authorities such as Devon and those of areas of London are not the same. 
 I visited the chief fire officer for Durham and Darlington, which, like Devon, is a combined authority. He had worked for Northumberland, which is a county authority, and Newcastle, which is a metropolitan authority, and he explained to me that the needs of those three authorities differed. He is possibly, but not necessarily, unique in having such a broad width of experience. I urge the Minister to reflect on how we might at the next stage create a less rigid system.

Nick Raynsford: Amendment No. 81 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State, in preparing the fire and rescue national framework, to include priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment would change the national framework from a strategic document to purely guidance for individual fire and rescue authorities. That runs counter to the advice contained in the well-regarded report of the Bain committee, which set the framework for the reform of the fire service that we are carrying through. I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge of paragraph 3 of the executive summary at the beginning of the report, which states:
''We therefore conclude that a fresh approach is required. This must start with a lead from the Government. There needs to be a new policy-making body, led by Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This needs to set a framework, making clear what the Government requires from the Fire Service; the ways in which the Service should be modernised; and, critically, the way in 
which the Service has to reposition itself so that it concentrates its efforts on reducing and managing the risk of fire rather than responding to incidents.''
 One could not wish for much clearer guidance. 
 The intention of the national framework is to provide the strategic leadership for the service that Bain called for, and which, sadly, has not been provided for far too long. All parties should consider it a failure that the fire service has not received the strategic leadership that it deserved from Governments of different political persuasions. We are grasping the nettle and acting to provide that strategic leadership, and the national framework is absolutely critical to that. 
 Amendment No. 157 would specify that the Secretary of State would allow fire and rescue authorities discretion in local decision making. Although a strong strategic steer is needed from central Government, we believe that the national framework already provides good scope for local discretion. It is our intention that the national framework will set out the Government's requirements for fire and rescue authorities, but will not prescribe how those requirements are met locally. Key elements of the modernisation agenda set out in the framework have been designed to promote local decision making—for example, the introduction of integrated risk management plans. If hon. Members examine the draft framework, which is being consulted on until early March, they will notice the considerable emphasis in the opening chapter on risk management and prevention, and on the need to 
''draw up local plans, taking account of local circumstances and local needs, in place of the far more restrictive national standards that were imposed under the old 1947 Act regime which this replaces''.
 That is far more susceptible to local planning and discretion. 
 The Government have always emphasised that they are committed to local decision making to provide effective services. One of the key reasons for repealing section 19 of the 1947 Act, which we did a year ago under the Local Government Act 2003, was to send a message to local fire authorities that they would have increased discretion to order their affairs in the most effective way. However, there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decisions must have priority. For example, decisions regarding national security cannot be subordinated to local discretion. Most people would accept that on issues such as anti-terrorism and resilience work, it is vital to have a wider overriding national perspective. We believe that the national framework will serve both those interests. It will set an overall strategic framework, but will give more than adequate discretion to local fire and rescue authorities to develop their own plans to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, and provide the best possible service to the public. I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that amendment No. 157 is not necessary. 
 Amendment No. 82 seeks to remove provision for the Secretary of State to decide what is best calculated to promote public safety and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire and rescue authorities. I 
 presume that the proposal is one more Opposition amendment designed to strip away powers from the Secretary of State, but it would lead only to confusion. There is inevitably a degree of subjectivity about, for example, what is the best way to promote the efficiency of the service. If we removed the words that refer to what, in the Secretary of State's view, is the best way to proceed, the question of whose view, and what interpretation, should prevail arises.

Philip Hammond: A judge.

Nick Raynsford: There we have it: the Opposition would much prefer the decision ultimately to go to the courts, with protracted expensive litigation, rather than clarity. There could not be a more telling example of the official Opposition's lack of serious thought on the need to modernise the fire and rescue service for which the Bain report, which the Opposition initially welcomed, argued so cogently.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is proposing a massive document that, despite what he says, sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in relation to such matters as human resources policy. That document will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but will simply be published by the Secretary of State. If the question is whether I think the Secretary of State's judgment should, at least theoretically, be subject to judicial review, the answer is yes I do, and I make no apology for that.

Nick Raynsford: I understand why the hon. Gentleman should be a bit defensive on that point. He gave the game away with his sedentary aside, when he indicated that he would much rather the decisions were taken in the courts through litigation than resulting from the Secretary of State's clear guidance. That is an obvious indication that the Conservative party does not expect to be in government for a long time.
 Amendment No. 82 would lead to confusion, and it is not the right way forward. There would undoubtedly be ambiguity and, of course, the possibility of legal challenge, which I am sure is exactly what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would welcome. When he describes the draft framework for consultation—I stress that it is a draft—as ''unduly prescriptive'', I do not think that he is reading the same document as we produced. He talked about the prescriptiveness of the proposals on human resource management. Those proposals are covered in paragraphs, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11, which set out expectations that any well organised authority would naturally welcome. The framework is not prescriptive in detail; it simply highlights the expectations that an authority should meet to ensure that its human resource operation is well managed and that certain functions are discharged at a regional level, because there are benefits from economies of scale in doing so. Any objective reader of the document would say that it was far from prescriptive, but that it did provide a helpful framework to enable fire and rescue authorities to develop their services in the most efficient way, which is the objective. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will withdraw the amendment, but if he does not, I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Philip Hammond: There we have it; the Minister has told us what any objective observer would make of his document. That is precisely the concern that we are expressing. I am afraid that, in the interests of economy, I was furnished only with a photocopy of the document, but, having read and annotated it, I am sure that we cannot be reading different documents. The Minister talked about the paragraphs on human resources, but they tell fire authorities that their human resources function will effectively be discharged at the regional level. That will cause the management capacity of fire authorities, particularly the smaller ones, to wither, so that they will de facto lose their independence and autonomy. They will become part of the larger regional structures that the Minister envisages—a thread that runs right through the document, and evidently through the Government's thinking.
 Are judges the right people ultimately to make decisions about how Ministers act? In an ideal world, no. We have a Parliament to scrutinise such things. If this document were to be presented to Parliament for consideration at debate and approval, that would clearly be the most appropriate way to proceed, but that is not what is proposed. It is proposed simply that the document will be published by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, there will not be a requirement for any form of parliamentary approval. It is in that context that I say clearly that the intention of tightening up the obligation on the Secretary of State is to make that an objective test, which at least theoretically could be used in the courts through judicial review. It is very much the second best option, but if we cannot have proper parliamentary scrutiny that is the route we would seek. 
 Nothing that the Minister has said has particularly reassured me but because of the time I shall not seek to divide the Committee now. We will focus the debate on the amendments dealing with parliamentary approval, where we can make the same point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in
clause 21, page 10, line 18, after '(a)', insert 'first'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 84, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 18, at end insert 'and'.
 Amendment No. 85, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 19, after '(b)', insert 
 'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a).'.
 Amendment No. 86, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 21, after '(c)', insert 
 'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b).'.
 Amendment No. 94, in 
clause 22, page 11, line 5, after '(a)', insert 'first'.
 Amendment No. 95, in 
clause 22, page 11, line 5, at end insert 'and'.
 Amendment No. 96, in 
clause 22, page 11, line 6, after '(b)', insert 
 'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a)'.
 Amendment No. 97, in 
clause 22, page 11, line 8, after '(c)', insert 
 'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b),'.

Philip Hammond: Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 together attempt to alter subsection (4) to create a clear hierarchy of objectives that the Secretary of State must follow in discharging his functions under subsection (1). At the moment, subsection (4) lists three objectives that the Secretary of State must pursue in discharging that duty under subsection (1). Amendment No. 83 will make it explicit in the Bill that public safety is the first consideration and that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are secondary considerations to be promoted, provided and to the extent that it is not at the expense of public safety.
 It is easy for the Minister to say that of course we all agree and public safety must be the number one consideration, but this is not a dry discussion. There will be occasions where there are conflicts between economy and efficiency on the one hand and optimising public safety on the other. It is important that there is a clear hierarchy of priorities with public safety in the number one position. This group of amendments attempts to address resolving potential conflicts between different objectives and makes it clear in the Bill which is to take priority in the event of a conflict. 
 Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 repeat the same action in relation to clause 22, ensuring that the Secretary of State's intervention is permitted only where it is in the interests of the promotion of public safety or on another ground, but only to the extent that pursuing it is not detrimental to the primary objective of pursuing public safety. Without that provision, there is no protection in the Bill against the Secretary of State deciding that economy should override public safety and making an intervention under clause 22 on the basis of economic arguments rather than public safety arguments. That would be a travesty of the repeated assurances from the Government going back to the issue of the interim Bain report that the modernisation programme is about saving lives, not saving money. 
 The Government need to ensure that that sentiment is enshrined in the Bill and the amendments attempt to do that.

Richard Younger-Ross: I support the general principle of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The only exception is amendment No. 87. That would remove the word ''revisions'', which would be wrong. Am I misinterpreting it? The clause says:
''In preparing the Framework, or any revisions to the Framework''.
 I think ''or any revisions'' would be deleted. Is that not the case?

Philip Hammond: I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee because that amendment says ''from 'Framework' '' but should specify that it refers to the second ''Framework'' in that line. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation would be correct, if one assumed that the reference was to the first framework, but the reference is to the second one. The amendment was not intended to do what the hon. Gentleman thought.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the basis that it runs from the second ''Framework'', I support that amendment as well.

Nick Raynsford: I am a little unsure as to whether we are dealing with amendment No. 83 and the grouping Nos. 84, 85 and 86, with which are grouped Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97. I think that the discussion that has been going on between the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Teignbridge has been to do with amendment No. 87, which is in the next grouping.

Edward O'Hara: I think that those in the nineties mirror these amendments to clause 21.

Nick Raynsford: I shall focus on amendment No. 83 and the linked amendments. As I understand it, they seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that the Secretary of State must give to the criteria on which he decides how to discharge his functions under subsections (1) and (3). Likewise, amendment Nos. 94 to 97 seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that he must give to the criteria with which he will decide to exercise intervention powers.
 In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on the priorities and objectives for the service. We have always said that public safety will be our paramount concern with regard to the fire and rescue service. I assure hon. Members that the national framework will reflect that. Similarly, we have stated that public safety will be our paramount concern in intervention. I give that assurance again. 
 Specifying public safety as a priority in the legislation is, therefore, unnecessary. It is also undesirable, since a vital part of having an effective fire and rescue service includes being able to weigh up the efficiency of a variety of functions, not simply those linked to public safety. That is integral to providing strategic leadership for the service through the national framework. 
 The amendment would be too restrictive and would take too narrow a view of what is in the interests of the public, both in terms of safety and more generally. For example, an authority might allocate a disproportionate amount of public money to cater for risks that are either inconsequential or adequately covered by other arrangements. Taken in isolation, such steps could further public safety, but at a disproportionate cost. They would mean that other, more deserving areas of the authority's functions were 
 neglected to the detriment of public safety, or that the local tax payer was asked to foot an excessive bill.

Philip Hammond: We are getting into the micro-management of a fire authority. The duty that the amendment seeks to constrain is the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) to produce a fire and rescue national framework.

Nick Raynsford: That is exactly the point that I am making. The amendment would be unduly restrictive because it would create an arbitrary hierarchy that meant that in certain instances a decision to recommend a particular approach—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The decision could be challenged on the ground that it is, in the hierarchy, subordinate to other issues.
 For example, it is suggested that paragraph (c) of clause 21(4), the 
''economy, efficiency and effectiveness in connection with the matters in relation to which fire and rescue authorities have functions'',
 is subordinate to paragraph (b), which is 
''the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire rescue authorities'',
 and paragraph (a), which is ''public safety''. The issue of resilience comes up in paragraph (c). If it were clear that arrangements in particular authorities were not allowing effective resilience at a national level, the Secretary of State could perfectly reasonably conclude that steps were necessary, yet that could be challenged on the ground that those wider issues were a subordinate consideration to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of individual fire and rescue authorities.

Philip Hammond: I would have thought that national resilience was covered by the public safety argument. The important thing is that we are not talking about specific cases in relation to clause 21; we are talking about the Secretary of State's priorities and objectives, which are to be set out in the fire and rescue national framework. That is his duty under subsection (1).
 We are asking the Secretary of State to set his priorities and objectives within a clear hierarchy, with public safety at the top. There may be a different argument, and the argument that the Minister advances is more persuasive in relation to clause 22, which relates to intervention. However, in relation to clause 21, his argument seems wide of the mark.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that my argument has persuasiveness in relation to the intervention powers, because amendments Nos. 94 to 97 are grouped with the ones that we are considering. However, I argue that it is equally applicable to the national framework, which has to be set for the service to develop all its responsibilities.
 The risk of the rigid hierarchy is that it would be open to challenge. We have heard about the possible intervention of judicial review in the courts. That would not be a helpful way forward. We want to create a framework that allows fire and rescue authorities to plan on the basis of reasonable certainty, and to do so in a way that ensures not only effective provision in their own area but that the sum total of the provision 
 made by fire and rescue authorities throughout the country leads to national resilience. Therefore, the argument applies in both instances. 
 I have already said that the overriding importance of public safety is taken for granted by the Government. There is no question but that that is paramount. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that such an artificial form of hierarchy would not add much, and could be undesirable. I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: In his closing few words, the Minister said that the Government take the view that public safety is the overriding consideration. There is a concern creeping in that what started as a purely safety-driven agenda about reducing risk and deploying resources according to risk, has become more an agenda about economies that need to be made in the service. In some areas, the justifications for Government proposals—I am thinking of control rooms in particular—are made in economic terms rather than in terms of public safety. I am not, of course, against making savings where possible, but we are seeking to reassert that public safety must be the paramount consideration.
 I have heard what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he acknowledged in his closing remarks that that was the Government's position. In considering the final form of the national framework, we as individuals—not we as Parliament, because under the Government proposals Parliament will not have any opportunity to scrutinise the framework—will want to ensure that what the Minister has just asserted to the Committee is translated into the final document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 21, page 10, line 23, leave out from 'Framework' to 'the' in line 24.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 88, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 25, leave out from 'persons' to 'them' in line 26 and insert 
 'confirmed by them as representing'.
 Amendment No. 89, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 27, leave out from 'persons' to 'employees' and insert 
 'recognised as representing any group of'.
 Amendment No. 90, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 32, leave out from 'Framework' to end of line.
 Amendment No. 91, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 32, at end insert 
 '6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.

Philip Hammond: I emphasise that amendment No. 91 would ensure that the framework was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is only proper because it is a very significant document, and I am sure that the Minister would not dispute that. The document is 49 pages long, and it is incorporated in a Bill 26 pages in length, so in many ways, it is a more substantial work than the Bill, and it is a much better guide to how things will work in practice. The framework slots into the Bill as an integral part of the structure.
 You would not thank us, Mr. O'Hara, if we sought to go through the draft national framework chapter by chapter and clause by clause as part of the debate on clause 21. However, it is a document that justifies that degree of scrutiny. It is entirely right that when the Secretary of State has completed his consultation, rather than simply publishing the document and laying it before Parliament, which I understand does not mean that Parliament is required to approve it in any way, it should be brought to Parliament for consideration and approval by both Houses. That is what we would like to see; it is absolutely essential that the document is considered by Parliament in its final form and has at least that much scrutiny. 
 Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 would introduce an objective test for the representatives of employers and employees who are to be consulted. Rather than the Secretary of State judging who he thinks represents each group, why not let the fire service employers, in particular, speak for themselves and decide who they consider properly to represent them? 
 Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 deal with the issue of amendments to the framework, and they fall in behind the proposal for proper parliamentary scrutiny of that document. Clearly, any changes to it would also then need to be scrutinised.

Nick Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to decide whether a revision to the fire and rescue national framework is sufficiently significant to warrant consulting fire and rescue authorities, their employees, and other fire and rescue stakeholders. I should explain that the whole purpose of the consultation document is to be a working document. This is the first draft; it will then be published in the definitive form as provided for in clause 21, and it will then be subject to revisions.
 Those revisions will range from major matters that will obviously require full consultation, to minor ones, perhaps reflecting small typographical changes or other issues, and not warranting the full-scale consultation exercise that would be appropriate for a policy review or update. It would not be an efficient use of the time of all those involved to be consulted on minor revisions such as the content of additional advice or guidance on the policies captured in the national framework. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those amendments are not terribly helpful. 
 In addition, amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to decide who represents fire and rescue authorities and 
 their employees. The Government have every intention of consulting all relevant parties on the national framework and other matters. When we prepared the draft national framework we followed Cabinet Office guidelines for consultation and sought the views of all key fire and rescue stakeholders, including all fire and rescue authorities, trade unions and associations, directly and via the new consultation bodies such as the practitioners forum. The full list of consultees is included in the national framework. Hon. Members are living in a bizarre world if they believe that we have failed to provide opportunities for all those who have a duty to respond and an interest in doing so

Philip Hammond: What about Parliament?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks about Parliament. We are considering all the relevant issues at this very moment. I will talk in a moment about the specific terminology and the presentation of the document, which is designed to be readable, accessible and available to fire and rescue authorities, chief fire officers and others with a day-to-day interest. We are not necessarily conversant with the legalistic language that inevitably follows from the parliamentary scrutiny of documents. It is fanciful to suggest that the document can somehow be transformed into a statutory instrument without that having a dramatic impact on its character and intelligibility. I believe that we have got the balance right. The document has been very well received.

Philip Hammond: Not by me, it hasn't.

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that it has not been well received by the hon. Gentleman; once again, he reveals that he is very much on his own. The responses that we have received are supportive, and contain helpful suggestions for various changes. Some commentators believe that we have been insufficiently prescriptive; others believe that we have been too prescriptive. There is a range of opinions, which is right and proper, but given the recommendations of the Bain report and the view that there should be a document of this nature to provide the overall framework within which fire and rescue authorities can operate, I can say that those involved have generally responded positively. They believe that the document has set out the issues in a helpful, credible and accessible way. I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument.

Philip Hammond: The Minister appears to be suggesting that the only way that Parliament could scrutinise the document is by turning it into a statutory instrument. However, his Department has more experience and familiarity than I am sure Ministers like with the procedure that we use for special grant reports, in which a Standing Committee considers the report and can question Ministers about it, take note of it and approve it at the end of a short debate. That would certainly be one form of scrutiny, if not the highest form. Surely there is some procedure, short of creating a statutory instrument, that would allow Parliament at least to express its concerns about such a document and ultimately, perhaps, to approve it.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman could not have made my case better, because I have taken several of
 those special reports through Parliament, and I know exactly the sort of language in which they are written. A special report is not the reasonably accessible, easily intelligible document that the national framework is designed to be. The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: The weakness in the Minister's argument is that he has failed to address the fact that the framework document is as significant as the Bill, but it will not be scrutinised by Parliament. Such scrutiny may be inconvenient for the Minister; he may have consulted all sorts of outside bodies, but this is a parliamentary democracy, and it is outrageous that a document as significant as this should be incorporated, by reference, in the Bill and introduced without any parliamentary scrutiny. I accept some of the Minister's points about the other amendments, and I will not press amendment No. 87 to a Division, but we must seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 91, which provides for parliamentary consideration of the document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 91, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 32, at end insert 
 '6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Intervention by Secretary of State

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in
clause 22, page 10, line 37, leave out from 'failing' to end of line 38 and insert 
 'to discharge its functions under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9.'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 93, in 
clause 22, page 10, line 39, leave out from 'authority' to first 'the' in line 40 and insert 
 'discharges its functions under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9.'.
 Amendment No. 98, in 
clause 23, page 11, line 15, leave out from 'authority's' to 'as' in line 16 and insert 
 'discharge of its functions under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9'.

Philip Hammond: In tabling these amendments, we sought to address the Secretary of State's power to intervene where an authority is failing. Amendment No. 92 would remove from subsection (1) the reference to an authority that ''is likely to fail''. It is not unreasonable that the intervention should take place after the offence has occurred, not when the Secretary of State thinks that it might occur.
 Together, the amendments would remove references to acting 
''in accordance with the Framework'',
 and substitute them with references to authorities discharging their functions under clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9. If an authority was properly discharging its core functions, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene because it was not complying with all the requirements of the framework in relation to human resource issues or employment practices. If we do not limit the Secretary of State's powers to intervene to cases in which there has been a clear failure to discharge statutory functions, the concept of local accountability and autonomy will have become meaningless. 
 Amendment No. 98 would amend clause 23—again replacing the reference to compliance with clause 21 with a reference to the authority discharging its functions under clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9. 
 The amendments are necessary to preserve the autonomy of fire and rescue authorities, and to ensure that the draconian powers granted to the Secretary of State under the clause, which will be exercised under the best value audit system, will not be imposed on authorities merely for failing to comply with the national framework, but according to the much more important question of whether they are discharging their statutory functions in relation to fire, road traffic accidents, fire safety or any other duties that the Secretary of State might prescribe under clause 9. That should be the test of whether intervention is required.

Nick Raynsford: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He proposes that intervention should be delayed until the failure has taken place. Much of the evidence is that early intervention can help to avoid failure, and in the interests of public safety that is clearly paramount. National issues are accounted for in the framework which are also of importance.
 It being Six o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order C(9) [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [10 February 2004], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned till Thursday 26 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.